Please note that these are the raw comments extracted from the scoping
meeting held at the location listed above. They were edited for the purpose
of clarity where necessary. A synthesis of comments will be available
soon.

Wants to see santuary protected but in a manner that supports commercial
users-fishing, boating, diving.

Do not want sanctuary to be over regulated and not allow public uses.
Keep it open and public.

Do not want sanctuary closed. Take more measured approach like a season
closure if necessary (like salmon and crab).

Restricted areas for fishing moved too far offshore. Small boats
can not safely fish that far out.

Need balance between no regulations and closure. Need early monitoring
of stock trends.

Regulate shark ecotourism before out of control. Set limits and implement
permit process.

Shellfish, lingcod, and other species harder to catch. Interested
in greater resource protection to stop declining populations.

Want to see sanctuary limit fishing to methods that do not harm habitat
and protect the resources.

GFNMS boundary should go down to Ano Nuevo and reflect GGNRA boundary to
match oceanic component with watershed component and match federal and
state partnerships.

Want sustainable and recovering fishing practices in the sanctuaries.
No gillnet, no longlining, no set lines so that there is less bycatch.
Reduce or eliminate bycatch. Eliminate bottom trawling.

Species need help, but too much regulation.

Resources should be protected but allow both recreational & commercial
fishing in balance.

Look at Alaskan models for balanced fishing regulations.

Look at success of eliminating dragging inward of 3 mile line to improve
habitat.

Apply those successes more broadly throughout ecosystem.

Work with locals on water quality programs. Encourage implementation.

Concerned about catch and disposal off of Muir beach to Stinson Beach.

Concerned about vessel maintenance and discharges into sanctuary.
Need monitoring.

Make regulations consistent between sanctuaries and make more stringent.
Both on water quality and invasive species issues.

GFNMS management plan should reflect watershed protection efforts locally.
More support (financial, technical, programmatic, fiscal, staffing).
Support existing watershed protection programs and get actively involved
in these programs. Ie. Water quality protection program in Monterey,
but tailored locally.

All 3 revised management plans focus on improved coordination among 3 sanctuaries.
Take programs that exist in one sanctuary and expand them to other 2. (Tailor
fit to location) More consistency among regulations for 3 sanctuaries.

Water quality monitoring: MBNMS should prioritize and implement SIMON
Program and GFNMS and CBNMS should adopt a similar program.

Water quality monitoring and baseline data is needed as well .
Centralize and improve coordination among water quality monitoring efforts.
Three sanctuaries should play coordinating role.

Sanctuaries should facilitate and coordinate individual efforts, and in
essence become the lead agency for water quality monitoring.

Outright ban in all 3 sanctuaries in the use of white sharks for commercial
ventures. That the GFNMS adopt recommendations put forward by the
Pt Reyes Bird observatory for GFNMS.

Sanctuaries should pay more attention to non-point sources of pollution.

Species at risk should be identified and inventoried.

Increase watershed protection. Better integration among agencies.

Increase funding for sanctuaries.

Ban MPWs in Tomales Bay.

Regulations in GFNMS regarding white sharks are vague, which leads to non
researchers (recreational boaters, fishers…) approaching sharks too closely.
GFNMS regs for white sharks need to be revised, MBNMS and Cordell Bank
regulations should be considered by GFNMS to decrease disturbances to white
sharks.

Additional funding for 3 sanctuaries to ensure adequate enforcement of
current and future regulations. Designate critical habitat
areas, develop management plans to manage human activities. Put the sanctuary
back in the Sanctuaries.

Improve coordination of research efforts. GFNMS and CBNMS should
adopt a program like MBNMS SIMON program.

GFNMS and CBNMS should play a coordinating role relating to research activities
on sanctuary resources (similar to MBNMS R.A.P.)

Lot line adjustments:

All three sanctuaries in a coordinated effort should explore ways
to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their sanctuary activities
through the reconfiguration of sanctuary boundaries. Specifically,
CBNMS and GFNMS should consider becoming one sanctuary in that most of
CBNMS resource and management issues are identical to GFNMS and that CBNMS
existence can be seen as a duplication of administration activities and
bureaucratic structure. Additionally, the northern boundaries
of MBNMS resemble a gerry-mandered congressional district; perhaps redrawing
the northern boundary of MBNMS at Pillar Pt. would be a good idea.
Hopefully all sanctuary protections, especially limitations on extractive
industries in MBNMS, could be moved and afforded with the jurisdiction
territories.

Concerned about land based issues such as landfill or anything that may
drain into estuaries. Also changing agriculture practices and increasing
demand for better integration of land use planning around the estuaries.
More protection for estero San Antonio and Americano.

Mgmt of fishery stocks should reflect biological not just commercial criteria.

Expand GFNMS Beach watch program to include water quality monitoring and
subsequent beach posting advisories when state water quality standards
are exceeded for water contact recreation. Apply program to
MBNMS and CBNMS.

Insure longterm ecological health, address diversity of ecosystem.

Ecotourism may conflict with scientific research- (all sanctuaries) in
particular GFNMS and sharks.

How is sanctuary addressing oil spill response? Response needs to
be more organized (especially between agencies).

Concerned about longterm health of ecosystem and wildlife—more education
on environment and human uses or (for general public) interactions.

Herring fishery well managed, best season in 25 years. Fish and Game
doing good job, NMS leave it alone.

Recurring problem at GFNMS with ecotourists that do not have guidelines
(surfboards, shark chum, lack of conventions) with white sharks.
White sharks protected in GFNMS need regulations for better protection.
Enforce MBNMS regulations in GFNMS.

Control speed when approaching sharks, wildlife viewing guidelines.

Marine reserves (or limited take) based on good science—look at it as a
tool for protecting fish and biological diversity.

Sharks- there is a problem between research and commercial exploitation,
clarify difference. Permit process of research and ecotourism guidelines
(5 boat lengths-approx). Do not let exploitation take place at expense
of research.

Education—start with kids and work up from there.

Sanctuary is a hollow term, should be comparable to wilderness zone- stricter
regulations and enforcement. Reserves should be for science and education;
no commercial activity, but low level impact ok (all sanctuaries).

Marine reserves- to protect ecosystems, set aside completely—studies to
determine what benefits are to sanctuary.

Identify where marine life cycle/history takes place and interfacing coasts/land
and protect that as well (including birds).

Commercial fishing: as long as NO biological reason for closing down, then
do not. If problem, then address it.

Enforcement—seems to be lacking at GFNMS for all regulations (state and
federal laws). Need actual sanctuary patrol presence (possibly).

Would like to see as much research as possible. If issue troublesome,
should be aggressive about research.

Regarding commercial/ sport fishing and management of it: sanctuary
should be managed biologically, not emotionally. No place should
be out of bounds in perpetuity.

Areas outside of waters should be protected (e.g. private lands).
Need education for private land owners to protect wildlife.

Build flexibility into Marine Protected areas so can respond to emerging
issues in positive way.

Monitoring, long term: need more by neutral body.

More public awareness for how to report incidents (grey area around beaches
in terms of authority). Educate people about who has authority in
different areas.

Document what IS here, so if oil spill we can value what WAS there (natural
resource inventory)

Ano Nuevo should stay within MBNMS

Expansion of volunteer efforts to help better inform the public.

Multi-use: manage sanctuary for this, use, enjoy, and explore.

Compile data into one place- synthesize document, make accessible.

Do not want the 3 NMS to be combined. Too much bureaucracy, and loss
of control.

The MBNMS boundary is in the wrong place.

Move south boundary of GFNMS south to Half Moon Bay, Pigeon Point, or somewhere
in the vicinity so oil spills are managed by one office.

Enhance discussions of no take areas.

Would like to see maximum dispersal or research results and information
(web page- maybe something else need to be considered).

Move GFNMS boundary south to San Mateo County area for best oil spill management
coordination. And make sure people are consistent and consistent
with ACP.

Specific regulations designed to protect specific species- species of special
concern get more consideration within the NMS.

Need logical no take zones with in the NMS. Be certain that the fishers
can know where they are using range markers, soundings.

GFNMS boundary should be moved to Ano Nuevo because this is where an ecological
boundary occurs, political boundary and where coast guard changes jurisdiction.

Control of ballast discharges to reduce invasive species through controlling
nitrogen purging or dumping far offshore. This should be enforced
through the sanctuary’s no discharge regulation.

NMS should create sustainable sanctuary guidelines.

Prioritize joint taxa inventory within GFNMS with Point Reyes National
Seashore.

Too much coastal development along the shoreline. NMS should coordinate
with the coastal commission.

Would like to see kayak companies (outfitters) required to obtain permits
to operate within GFNMS so they understand the impacts to the ecosystem.

Stress outreach to diverse communities need more than just posting activities
on the web site. Brainstorm with SAC to come up with action plan.

Have a positive public relations and outreach for what you can do instead
of what you can’t. ie. Highschools could be involved to make videos,
contests, promoting the sanctuary in general. Keep doing it!

Open house events to educate the public on the sanctuary how to live within
the sanctuary, it’s free, regulations.

Need clearer summary of the regulations.

The next management plan should be similar to the MBNMS layout and content;
more content less glossy.

Need increased enforcement of leaks of diesel from boats. Extend
this into Bodega Harbor because the diesel leaks into the NMS when the
boats enter the NMS.

Should get funding to find the sunken vessel that is leaking the mystery
oil.

All two strokes outboards should be banned in all NMS.

Should ban underwater sonar experimental testing, that might have deleterious
effects on resources in the NMS.

Should be some role of the NMS to participate in development of regulations.

Control fishing (commercial and sport) to achieve sustainability.

Review the plan more often than every 15 years.

Lack of enforcement of regulations particularly with fill in Tomales Bay.
There needs to be incentive to have people comply and education.

Get sanctuary education into public schools- especially elementary schools
in areas of sanctuary.

Assess problem of barrels dumped in 50s by navy- radioactive waste. Try
to understand where they are and the condition that they are in.

Make public any Navy and military activities in sanctuaries- especially
GFA and Sonar.

Place sanctuaries in more regional perspective- figure out the connectivity
of the sanctuaries of the populations that inhabit them at any one time.

Be aware of shore fishermen- fishing from beach- Do not overlook shore
fishermen and their activities. Treat shore fishermen separate from commercial
and sport fishermen in regards to management and possible fishing closures.

Vessel traffic lanes pushed out to help address oil spill impacts at Farallon
islands and impact to sea bird colonies and pinnipeds.

Do not change sanctuary boundaries unless regulations are standardized
between the sanctuaries- es: line at Ano Nuevo with white shark regs.

Educate the public about regulations and rules in positive way about access
and restricted areas- ex: breeding seasons/ why?

Work on habitat/ ecological/ fisheries/ kelp forests/ wetlands/ lagoons
restoration, long term and involve community (schools) and fishermen so
there is a greater understanding by the community.

Concerned about ship strikes on cetaceans and noise pollution from large
ships- possibly incorporate into better (or change of )zone for vessel
traffic lanes- outside SF Bay and Farallon Islands.

Better coordination between sanctuaries and Coast Guards/Navy/Commmercial
planes during breeding season and Farallon Islands due to the excessive
noise pollution. Educate the agencies about noise pollution effects
on the breeding colonies at Farallon Islands.

Education over regulations. Better communication between all agencies
along coast and more effective way of communication in emergency response.

Create current/wind model to predict where oil would end up in the event
of an oil spill—better coverage of current model- extend to cover entire
coast.

Create program to prevent invasive species in ballast water from contaminating
sanctuary waters- compare ballast waste to water in port of origin regarding
temp, salinity, etc. Refer to practice in Australia and Tasmania.